3 ms·

You may not have understood that properly. Hint: he isn't the one being sexist...

by grkvlt 11y ago

logicallee 11y ago
His implication is that the only reason an eighteen year old girl who is attractive would be offered an internship is that she is an attractive woman. You're not even questioning it. The way the author wrote it is messed up. hmmmm, can I get through your own sexist brain? (Not an ad hominem, I just feel you're also being sexist.) Let's try this, this may or may not work. Close your eyes and imagine that you've studied very, very hard throughout high school and through very hard work you were admitted to MIT. You're also an attractive woman, which is irrelevant. You're reading HN, and then the linked article. Now how do you feel reading that blog post and its implication? >married hetero male founders: we're thinking of getting an intern >me: okay but I don't see what we could offer you know we're on a really tight >married hetero male founders: we're getting an intern. >intern: (beautiful 18yo girl) did I get through to you?
- nikdaheratik 11y ago
  If you'll read upstream, you'll see that the intention was to leave this ambiguous and let you decide. There are several ways to take this: 1. Your idea that there was nothing wrong with the situation and the OP was being denigrating to women everywhere by pointing out this situation and implying there was anything wrong. 2. Another idea that the founders weren't interested in hiring an intern for actual work, as there wasn't enough to go around, but would hire an 18 yo girl to hang around the office. 3. Another idea may be that an 18 yo is not experienced enough to realize they are being paid much less than market value for their work and it's being called an "internship". Women especially seem to put up with this nonsense. 4. Some other scenario I haven't thought up yet. Rorschach test away... I did find it odd that you seemed to specifically pick on tech startups when I think the exact same situation would be equally stupid in a startup for media or other finance or another industry.

You may not have understood that properly. Hint: he isn't the one being sexist...

by grkvlt 11y ago

You may not have understood that properly. Hint: he isn't the one being sexist...

His implication is that the only reason an eighteen year old girl who is attractive would be offered an internship is that she is an attractive woman. You're not even questioning it. The way the author wrote it is messed up. hmmmm, can I get through your own sexist brain? (Not an ad hominem, I just feel you're also being sexist.) Let's try this, this may or may not work. Close your eyes and imagine that you've studied very, very hard throughout high school and through very hard work you were admitted to MIT. You're also an attractive woman, which is irrelevant. You're reading HN, and then the linked article. Now how do you feel reading that blog post and its implication? >married hetero male founders: we're thinking of getting an intern >me: okay but I don't see what we could offer you know we're on a really tight >married hetero male founders: we're getting an intern. >intern: (beautiful 18yo girl) did I get through to you?

nikdaheratik 11y ago
If you'll read upstream, you'll see that the intention was to leave this ambiguous and let you decide. There are several ways to take this: 1. Your idea that there was nothing wrong with the situation and the OP was being denigrating to women everywhere by pointing out this situation and implying there was anything wrong. 2. Another idea that the founders weren't interested in hiring an intern for actual work, as there wasn't enough to go around, but would hire an 18 yo girl to hang around the office. 3. Another idea may be that an 18 yo is not experienced enough to realize they are being paid much less than market value for their work and it's being called an "internship". Women especially seem to put up with this nonsense. 4. Some other scenario I haven't thought up yet. Rorschach test away... I did find it odd that you seemed to specifically pick on tech startups when I think the exact same situation would be equally stupid in a startup for media or other finance or another industry.